欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (3): 462-471.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.94038

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    

改善土壤通气性促进甘薯源库间光合产物运转的原因解析

刘永晨1,司成成2,柳洪鹃1,*(),张彬彬1,史春余1,*()   

  1. 1. 山东农业大学农学院 / 作物生物学国家重点实验室, 山东泰安 271018
    2. 海南大学园艺学院, 海南海口 570228
  • 收稿日期:2019-03-08 接受日期:2019-09-26 出版日期:2020-03-12 发布日期:2019-10-12
  • 通讯作者: 柳洪鹃,史春余 E-mail:liumei0535@126.com;scyu@sdau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:E-mail: liuyongchensdau@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由国家自然科学基金项目(31371577);本研究由国家自然科学基金项目(31701357);山东省薯类产业创新团队首席专家项目资助(SDAIT-16-01)

Reason exploration for soil aeration promoting photosynthate transportation between sink and source in sweet potato

Yong-Chen LIU1,Cheng-Cheng SI2,Hong-Juan LIU1,*(),Bin-Bin ZHANG1,Chun-Yu SHI1,*()   

  1. 1. College of Agronomy, Shandong Agricultural University / State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Tai’an 271018, Shandong, China;
    2. College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, Hainan, China
  • Received:2019-03-08 Accepted:2019-09-26 Online:2020-03-12 Published:2019-10-12
  • Contact: Hong-Juan LIU,Chun-Yu SHI E-mail:liumei0535@126.com;scyu@sdau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(31371577);This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(31701357);the Potato Innovation Program for Chief Expert of Shandong Province(SDAIT-16-01)

摘要:

为了明确土壤通气性对甘薯源库间光合产物运转的调控机制, 本研究以淀粉型品种商薯19和济徐23为试验材料, 设置疏松、对照和紧实3个处理进行大田试验, 研究结果表明, 与对照处理相比, 疏松处理显著提高2个品种的块根产量和经济系数, 2年平均增幅分别为27.03%~38.74%和6.30%~13.05%, 紧实处理则显著降低2个品种的块根产量和经济系数, 2年平均降幅分别为17.87%~15.92%和10.83%~15.63%。功能叶 13C标记结果显示, 疏松处理显著提高块根中光合产物的输入效率。疏松处理显著提高块根中蔗糖和淀粉含量, 显著降低地上部器官中淀粉含量和茎中尤其是茎的中下部中蔗糖含量; 紧实处理则显著降低块根中蔗糖和淀粉含量, 而显著提高地上部器官蔗糖和淀粉含量, 且茎中下部蔗糖含量增幅较大。疏松处理显著降低50~150 d茎基部与茎顶部间和茎基部与块根间的蔗糖含量差; 紧实处理则显著提高茎基部与茎顶部间和茎基部与块根间的蔗糖含量差, 且茎基部与块根间蔗糖含量差的变幅大于茎基部与茎顶部间的蔗糖含量差。相关分析表明, 茎基部与块根间、茎基部与茎顶部间蔗糖含量差与块根蔗糖和淀粉含量呈极显著负相关。说明改善土壤通气性可促进茎基部光合产物向块根的运转, 提高块根中碳水化合物含量, 增加块根产量。

关键词: 甘薯, 土壤通气性, 块根产量, 光合产物, 运转

Abstract:

Field experiments were performed using the varieties of starchy sweet potato Shangshu 19 and Jixu 23 with three treatments including loose soil, control soil and compact soil, to clarify the regulatory mechanism of soil compaction on transportation of photosynthates between sink and source of sweet potato. Compared with control treatment, storage root yield and economic coefficient of loose soil treatment were significantly increased by 27.03%-38.74% and 6.30%-13.05% in two years, respectively, while those of compact soil treatment significantly decreased by 17.87%-15.92% and 10.83%-15.63%, respectively. The 13C labeling results of functional leaves showed that loose treatment significantly improved the import efficiency of photosynthate in storage roots. Loose soil treatment significantly increased sucrose and starch contents in storage roots, but significantly reduced starch content in aboveground organs, especially in lower-middle position of stem. Compact soil treatment significantly decreased sucrose and starch contents in storage roots, but significantly increased starch and sucrose contents in aboveground organs especially in lower-middle position of stem. Both difference of sucrose content between stem base and stem top and between stem base and storage root at 50-150 days after planting in loose treatment were significantly decreased. While, significantly increased in compact treatment. The variation range of sucrose content difference between stem base and storage root was larger than between stem base and stem top. There was a very significantly negative correlation between the sucrose content difference of stem base and storage root, and the sucrose and starch content in storage root. Improvement of soil aeration, can promote the transportation of photosynthates from stem base to storage root, increase carbohydrate content in storage root and enhance storage root yield.

Key words: sweet potato, soil aeration, storage root yield, photosynthate, transportation

图1

主茎各部位划分模式图"

表1

栽秧期土壤物理性状"

年份Year 处理Treatment 土层深度
Soil layer
(cm)
土壤紧实度
Soil volume weight (kPa)
土壤容重
Soil
compactness
(g cm-3)
土壤比重
Soil specific gravity
(g cm-3)
总孔隙度
Total
porosity
(%)
毛管孔隙度
Capillary porosity (%)
非毛管孔隙度
Non-capillary porosity
(%)
2017 SS 5-10 126.49 1.26 2.58 51.35 24.86 26.49
15-20 224.23 1.30 2.57 49.35 25.50 23.85
CK 5-10 301.16 1.33 2.64 49.81 24.15 25.66
15-20 464.12 1.39 2.73 49.19 31.68 17.51
JS 5-10 541.63 1.46 2.73 46.38 31.78 14.60
15-20 927.74 1.49 2.75 45.71 38.30 7.41
2018 SS 5-10 143.17 1.25 2.57 50.69 24.62 26.07
15-20 174.17 1.29 2.58 49.62 25.46 24.16
CK 5-10 267.91 1.33 2.65 48.92 25.30 23.62
15-20 508.06 1.38 2.73 48.65 30.14 18.51
JS 5-10 826.07 1.47 2.74 46.66 31.21 15.45
15-20 1230.60 1.49 2.75 45.83 36.91 8.92

表2

块根产量及经济系数"

年份Year 品种
Variety
处理Treatment 单株结薯数
Number of storage root (lump plant-1)
单薯重
Fresh weight
(g lump-1)
块根产量
Storage root yield (kg hm-2)
经济系数
Economic coefficient
(%)
2017 商薯19
Shangshu 19
SS 4.56 b 244.31 a 55660.87 a 70.47 a
CK 4.42 b 214.53 b 47280.21 b 65.90 b
JS 5.72 a 141.49 c 40206.75 c 61.79 c
济徐23
Jixu 23
SS 3.58 b 315.09 a 55913.79 a 79.61 a
CK 3.47 b 274.83 b 46897.60 b 75.34 b
JS 4.39 a 188.87 c 41110.64 c 63.72 c
2018 商薯19
Shangshu 19
SS 3.99 b 296.34 a 59113.79 a 80.13 a
CK 3.88 b 223.33 b 43361.92 b 67.57 b
JS 4.62 a 148.89 c 34353.97 c 56.35 c
济徐23
Jixu 23
SS 2.99 b 363.18 a 54170.01 a 89.68 a
CK 2.91 b 243.25 b 34227.44 b 83.42 b
JS 3.56 a 154.82 c 27550.52 c 71.19 c

图2

标记叶、主茎和块根中13C丰度变化特点(2017年) 缩写同表1。"

表3

块根快速膨大期各器官内13C同化物的分配率(%, 2017年, 品种为商薯19)"

处理
Treatment
块根
Storage root
侧茎
Side stem
侧叶和生长点
Side leaf and growing point
主茎
Main stem
标叶
Labeled leaf
标茎
Labeled stem
标柄
Labeled petiole
SS 53.62 15.57 27.18 2.91 0.39 0.19 0.15
CK 49.69 17.24 27.63 4.07 0.82 0.28 0.26
JS 44.75 17.47 31.12 5.17 0.85 0.27 0.38

表4

不同器官蔗糖含量"

年份
Year
器官
Organ
品种
Variety
处理
Treatment
栽后天数 Days after planting (d)
50 70 90 110 130 150
2017 叶片 商薯19 SS 3.22 a 4.27 a 4.39 a 5.86 a 6.74 a 5.11 a
Leaf Shangshu 19 CK 1.87 b 2.96 b 3.37 b 5.22 b 5.58 b 4.76 b
JS 1.53 c 2.74 b 3.01 c 4.70 c 4.81 c 4.41 c
济徐23 SS 3.75 a 4.18 a 4.25 a 5.61 a 6.94 a 4.60 a
Jixu 23 CK 2.91 b 3.33 b 3.51 b 4.59 b 5.70 b 4.19 b
JS 2.04 c 2.85 c 3.36 c 4.31 c 4.95 c 4.02 b
叶柄 商薯19 SS 10.31 a 10.89 a 12.50 a 13.04 a 13.23 a 10.76 a
Petiole Shangshu 19 CK 6.80 b 7.94 b 7.97 b 8.57 b 8.69 b 6.53 b
JS 5.88 c 6.93 c 7.50 c 7.85 c 7.91 b 5.78 c
济徐23 SS 10.24 a 10.61 a 10.35 a 11.56 a 12.55 a 10.30 a
Jixu 23 CK 7.48 b 7.64 b 7.93 b 8.33 b 8.55 b 6.83 b
JS 5.45 c 6.01 c 7.06 c 8.01 b 8.34 b 6.04 c
茎蔓 商薯19 SS 3.82 c 5.37 c 7.01 c 7.31 c 7.82 c 5.77 c
Stem Shangshu 19 CK 6.48 b 7.14 b 8.26 b 8.75 b 9.47 b 8.07 b
JS 7.84 a 8.48 a 9.46 a 9.67 a 9.73 a 9.16 a
济徐23 SS 4.62 c 5.52 c 5.88 c 6.62 c 8.00 c 6.65 c
Jixu 23 CK 6.11 b 6.57 b 7.82 b 8.91 b 9.48 b 9.21 b
JS 7.32 a 8.01 a 9.21 a 9.89 a 10.20 a 9.98 a
块根 商薯19 SS 7.40 a 7.74 a 8.31 a 9.10 a 11.26 a 8.92 a
Storage root Shangshu 19 CK 6.04 b 6.19 b 6.49 b 6.70 b 9.30 b 6.95 b
JS 5.50 c 6.01 c 5.81 c 6.33 c 8.96 c 6.42 c
济徐23 SS 7.35 a 8.62 a 9.31 a 9.26 a 10.82 a 9.20 a
Jixu 23 CK 5.70 b 6.48 b 7.41 b 7.44 b 9.08 b 6.82 b
JS 5.13 c 5.76 c 6.73 c 6.98 c 9.59 c 5.81 c
2018 叶片 商薯19 SS 2.97 a 3.74 a 4.57 a 4.68 a 3.59 a 4.82 a
Leaf Shangshu 19 CK 1.85 b 2.88 b 3.64 b 3.96 b 4.74 b 4.43 b
JS 1.45 c 2.29 c 3.03 c 3.46 c 3.81 c 3.39 c
济徐23 SS 2.32 a 3.48 a 4.05 a 4.35 a 4.88 a 4.62 a
Jixu 23 CK 1.88 b 2.80 b 3.53 b 3.69 b 4.03 b 3.54 b
JS 1.08 c 2.43 c 2.87 c 3.17 c 3.57 c 3.54 b
叶柄 商薯19 SS 8.26 a 9.58 a 13.00 a 14.54 a 14.93 a 13.55 a
Petiole Shangshu 19 CK 6.80 b 7.40 b 9.03 b 10.58 b 11.89 b 10.62 b
JS 5.97 c 6.42 c 8.23 c 8.62 c 8.87 c 10.45 b
济徐23 SS 9.10 a 9.94 a 14.07 a 14.25 a 15.25 a 12.44 a
Jixu 23 CK 7.29 b 7.96 b 9.83 b 11.20 b 10.89 b 10.10 b
JS 5.88 c 7.33 c 8.34 c 8.60 c 8.38 c 9.99 b
茎蔓 商薯19 SS 4.65 c 5.71 c 7.07 c 7.49 c 8.33 c 7.25 c
Stem Shangshu 19 CK 6.02 b 7.75 b 9.17 b 9.27 b 10.35 b 9.10 b
JS 7.11 a 9.17 a 10.42 a 10.74 a 11.22 a 10.52 a
济徐23 SS 4.98 c 6.00 c 6.76 c 7.18 c 8.34 c 7.06 c
Jixu 23 CK 6.61 b 6.97 b 8.84 b 9.19 b 10.29 b 8.50 b
JS 7.58 a 9.69 a 10.58 a 11.16 a 11.65 a 9.83 a
块根 商薯19 SS 5.60 a 7.29 a 9.85 a 11.02 a 12.72 a 11.49 a
Storage root Shangshu 19 CK 4.28 b 5.14 b 6.03 b 7.68 b 8.36 b 7.25 b
JS 3.57 c 4.15 c 4.66 c 6.04 c 6.24 c 5.96 c
济徐23 SS 5.19 a 7.29 a 10.24 a 11.78 a 12.93 a 11.99 a
Jixu 23 CK 3.68 b 4.99 b 6.16 b 7.05 b 7.75 b 7.00 b
JS 3.20 c 4.13 c 5.14 c 5.85 c 6.49 c 5.42 c

表5

不同器官淀粉含量"

年份
Year
器官
Organ
品种
Variety
处理
Treatment
栽后天数 Days after planting (d)
50 70 90 110 130 150
2017 叶片 商薯19 SS 4.29 a 5.27 a 7.11 c 9.05 c 9.96 c 9.52 c
Leaf Shangshu 19 CK 3.64 b 4.64 b 8.96 b 11.38 b 11.60 b 10.84 b
JS 3.44 c 4.59 b 9.59 a 12.87 a 14.28 a 12.07 a
济徐23 SS 5.48 a 6.32 a 7.37 b 8.89 b 10.16 c 8.87 c
Jixu 23 CK 4.63 b 5.53 b 9.94 a 11.99 a 12.21 b 11.81 b
JS 4.32 c 5.19 c 10.39 a 12.15 a 13.71 a 12.24 a
叶柄 商薯19 SS 6.16 a 7.21 c 9.33 c 10.69 b 10.86 c 8.17 c
Petiole Shangshu 19 CK 5.09 b 7.94 b 10.95 b 12.14 a 12.50 b 9.88 b
JS 4.40 c 9.27 a 12.33 a 12.43 a 13.90 a 11.51 a
济徐23 SS 7.64 a 7.82 c 9.11 c 9.70 c 10.14 c 7.45 c
Jixu 23 CK 6.11 b 8.45 b 10.56 b 11.09 b 11.73 b 9.36 b
JS 5.58 c 9.69 a 12.15 a 12.38 a 13.81 a 11.13 a
茎蔓 商薯19 SS 16.01 c 16.85 c 19.44 c 15.54 c 17.06 c 12.86 b
Stem Shangshu 19 CK 18.37 b 19.05 b 21.61 b 19.02 b 19.75 b 13.34 a
JS 19.81 a 20.71 a 22.68 a 20.20 a 21.80 a 13.39 a
济徐23 SS 15.45 c 16.32 c 19.08 c 16.32 c 17.15 c 13.81 c
Jixu 23 CK 18.81 b 19.17 b 21.62 b 18.33 b 18.79 b 14.33 b
JS 20.69 a 21.52 a 23.85 a 19.52 a 20.61 a 15.68 a
块根 商薯19 SS 38.74 a 40.78 a 61.29 a 67.69 a 79.46 a 88.66 a
Storage root Shangshu 19 CK 24.75 b 29.61 b 44.92 b 58.35 b 66.81 b 71.28 b
JS 22.24 c 25.92 c 38.34 c 51.25 c 61.07 c 64.95 c
济徐23 SS 35.49 a 38.6 a 58.22 a 68.65 a 81.63 a 87.81 a
Jixu 23 CK 26.98 b 30.86 b 45.86 b 59.61 b 65.61 b 69.75 b
JS 24.31 c 27.9 c 38.79 c 51.04 c 58.05 c 60.52 c
2018 叶片 商薯19 SS 2.21 a 3.83 a 5.61 a 6.39 c 8.05 c 8.25 c
Leaf Shangshu 19 CK 1.72 b 3.04 b 5.62 a 7.25 b 10.16 b 9.88 b
JS 1.52 c 2.69 c 5.63 a 8.33 a 11.71 a 10.47 a
济徐23 SS 2.02 a 4.06 a 5.11 a 5.92 c 8.11 c 7.82 c
Jixu 23 CK 1.72 b 3.31 b 5.27 a 7.45 b 9.60 b 8.28 b
JS 1.44 c 2.32 c 5.38 a 8.30 a 11.17 c 10.19 a
叶柄 商薯19 SS 5.06 a 6.70 a 7.70 c 10.97 c 11.56 c 10.22 c
Petiole Shangshu 19 CK 4.33 b 6.52 ab 8.70 b 13.42 b 14.64 b 12.78 b
JS 3.74 c 6.20 b 10.07 a 15.33 a 16.02 a 14.43 a
济徐23 SS 5.79 a 6.57 a 8.26 c 11.46 c 11.23 c 10.25 c
Jixu 23 CK 3.96 b 6.47 a 10.21 b 14.00 b 15.29 b 12.41 b
JS 3.40 c 6.43 a 11.32 c 15.19 a 16.91 a 14.59 a
茎蔓 商薯19 SS 12.85 c 13.90 c 14.98 c 15.66 c 16.36 c 15.13 c
Stem Shangshu 19 CK 14.13 b 15.34 b 17.60 b 18.34 b 19.42 b 16.90 b
JS 15.23 a 17.22 a 19.09 a 20.34 a 22.25 a 18.44 a
济徐23 SS 11.74 c 12.41 c 13.87 c 14.86 c 15.46 c 12.48 c
Jixu 23 CK 13.23 b 14.74 b 15.30 b 16.98 b 17.45 b 13.92 b
JS 14.92 a 16.70 a 18.78 a 21.23 a 22.68 a 17.69 a
块根 商薯19 SS 34.04 a 41.80 a 60.46 a 66.33 a 76.01 a 83.07 a
Storage root Shangshu 19 CK 23.52 b 32.00 b 45.61 b 47.44 b 58.76 b 70.06 b
JS 20.72 c 27.10 c 40.10 c 41.89 c 50.12 c 60.51 c
济徐23 SS 37.92 a 44.20 a 62.13 a 65.75 a 75.70 a 86.02 a
Jixu 23 CK 22.92 b 28.36 b 42.12 b 47.90 b 58.03 b 65.40 b
JS 19.68 c 25.07 c 34.60 c 41.35 c 50.74 c 56.93 c

表6

茎不同部位蔗糖和淀粉含量(%, 2018年)"

项目 Item 部位
Position
品种
Variety
处理
Treatment
栽后天数 Days after planting (d)
50 70 90 110 130 150
蔗糖Sucrose 茎顶部
Stem top
商薯19 SS 3.07 a 4.45 a 5.03 a 5.36 a 5.87 a 5.40 a
Shangshu 19 CK 1.64 b 3.25 b 4.33 b 4.74 b 5.37 b 4.88 b
JS 1.19 c 2.46 c 3.85 c 4.25 c 4.71 c 4.48 c
济徐23 SS 2.50 a 4.61 a 5.13 a 5.72 a 6.25 a 5.26 a
Jixu 23 CK 2.07 b 3.18 b 4.47 b 5.10 b 5.43 b 4.36 b
JS 1.70 c 2.49 c 3.91 c 4.73 c 4.74 c 4.00 c
茎中部
Stem middle
商薯19 SS 2.60 c 2.87 c 3.35 c 4.07 c 5.58 c 4.44 c
Shangshu 19 CK 3.76 b 3.24 b 4.12 b 5.30 b 6.60 b 5.82 b
JS 5.13 a 4.37 a 5.69 a 6.71 a 8.24 a 6.75 a
济徐23 SS 1.69 c 2.48 c 3.33 c 4.12 c 5.45 c 3.93 c
Jixu 23 CK 2.08 b 3.14 b 4.01 b 5.32 b 6.26 b 4.97 b
JS 4.71 a 4.54 a 5.33 a 7.01 a 7.96 a 6.25 a
茎基部
Stem base
商薯19 SS 8.75 c 9.58 c 10.10 c 10.41 c 11.34 c 10.27 c
Shangshu 19 CK 9.87 b 11.50 b 12.84 b 11.69 b 12.51 b 11.51 b
JS 10.91 a 13.32 a 14.88 a 14.47 a 15.47 a 13.79 a
济徐23 SS 8.30 c 9.53 c 9.93 c 9.94 c 10.89 c 9.52 c
Jixu 23 CK 9.93 b 11.20 b 12.10 b 11.33 b 12.36 b 11.12 b
JS 11.40 a 13.41 a 14.49 a 14.27 a 14.86 a 13.35 a
淀粉Starch 茎顶部
Stem top
商薯19 SS 11.93 c 13.12 c 14.53 c 15.40 c 16.17 c 14.46 c
Shangshu 19 CK 13.17 b 14.49 b 16.82 b 17.79 b 18.17 b 16.50 b
JS 14.53 a 16.36 a 18.79 a 20.09 a 21.11 a 18.12 a
济徐23 SS 11.99 c 12.26 c 13.24 c 15.02 c 15.58 c 11.86 c
Jixu 23 CK 13.07 b 14.66 b 15.30 b 16.30 b 17.41 b 13.19 b
JS 14.39 a 16.54 a 18.36 a 19.53 a 20.47 a 16.65 a
茎中部
Stem middle
商薯19 SS 14.11 c 14.89 c 15.72 c 17.17 c 18.19 c 17.09 c
Shangshu 19 CK 15.37 b 17.59 b 17.89 b 19.56 b 20.47 b 19.96 b
JS 17.62 a 19.00 a 21.05 a 21.96 a 22.71 a 21.56 a
济徐23 SS 13.88 c 14.56 c 15.29 c 16.38 c 17.31 c 15.35 c
Jixu 23 CK 16.21 b 18.18 b 19.01 b 19.62 b 20.54 b 17.76 b
JS 18.28 a 20.07 a 20.85 a 22.27 a 22.52 a 20.05 a
茎基部
Stem base
商薯19 SS 18.73 c 19.73 c 21.16 c 21.69 c 22.23 c 21.17 c
Shangshu 19 CK 22.32 23.34 c 24.36 c 24.29 c 25.49 c 24.62 b
JS 24.69 a 25.57 a 26.47 a 27.40 a 28.84 a 27.85 a
济徐23 SS 17.56 c 19.59 c 50.80 c 21.22 c 21.92 c 20.17 c
Jixu 23 CK 21.34 b 23.16 b 23.88 b 23.80 b 25.11 b 23.26 b
JS 23.47 a 25.11 a 26.83 a 27.75 a 29.47 a 28.09 a

表7

不同器官间蔗糖含量差"

年份Year 栽后天数Days after planting (d) 品种
Variety
处理Treatment 柄-叶
Petiole-
Leaf
柄-茎顶部Petiole-
Stem top
茎基部-茎顶部
Stem base-
Stem top
茎基部-块根Stem top-
Storage root
2017 90 商薯19 SS 96.03 a 55.62 a 10.34 c -5.95 c
Shangshu 19 CK 81.13 b 15.55 c 31.08 b 35.90 b
JS 85.44 b 25.39 b 60.84 a 60.84 a
济徐23 SS 83.56 a 35.90 a -2.53 c -28.05 c
Jixu 23 CK 77.27 b 22.44 b 44.57 b 29.36 b
JS 71.02 c 26.28 b 63.22 a 43.12 a
110 商薯19 SS 75.98 a 54.81 a -1.36 c -21.55 c
Shangshu 19 CK 48.59 b 28.38 b 30.64 b 26.76 b
JS 50.20 b 32.25 b 54.62 a 44.28 a
济徐23 SS 69.31 a 34.60 a -22.53 c -35.03 c
Jixu 23 CK 57.89 b 10.35 c 15.48 b 16.41 b
JS 60.06 b 17.07 b 45.18 a 41.99 a
130 商薯19 SS 65.00 a 41.98 a -36.07 c -60.95 c
Shangshu 19 CK 43.59 c 22.68 c 25.80 b -3.61 b
JS 48.74 b 27.46 b 44.76 a 5.43 a
济徐23 SS 57.57 a 33.05 a -49.03 c -66.01 c
Jixu 23 CK 40.00 c 19.94 c 18.65 b -7.31 b
JS 51.02 b 29.75 b 38.01 a -5.46 a
2018 90 商薯19 SS 95.99 a 88.36 a 67.04 c 2.56 c
Shangshu 19 CK 84.95 a 70.22 b 99.07 b 72.14 b
JS 92.21 b 72.52 b 117.78 a 104.62 a
济徐23 SS 110.58 a 93.16 a 63.79 c -3.02 c
Jixu 23 CK 94.39 c 75.00 b 92.15 b 65.08 b
JS 97.68 b 72.29 b 114.98 a 95.33 a
110 商薯19 SS 102.48 a 92.27 a 64.18 c -5.68 c
Shangshu 19 CK 91.05 b 76.23 b 84.58 b 41.45 b
JS 85.38 b 68.04 c 109.26 a 82.20 a
济徐23 SS 106.44 a 85.44 a 53.97 c -16.85 c
Jixu 23 CK 100.85 b 74.91 b 75.91 b 46.60 b
JS 92.25 c 58.05 c 100.38 a 83.64 a
130 商薯19 SS 91.07 a 87.05 a 63.50 c -11.47 c
Shangshu 19 CK 85.95 b 75.53 b 79.91 b 39.79 b
JS 79.78 c 61.30 c 106.66 a 84.97 a
济徐23 SS 103.02 a 83.76 a 54.22 c -17.08 c
Jixu 23 CK 92.04 b 67.01 b 77.99 b 45.90 b
JS 80.44 c 55.32 c 103.25 a 78.36 a

表8

甘薯器官间蔗糖含量差与块根碳水化合物含量的相关性分析"

品种Variety 相邻器官间蔗糖含量差
Sucrose content differences between adjacent organ
与块根蔗糖含量的相关系数Correlation coefficient of sucrose
content between adjacent organs with sucrose content in storage root
与块根淀粉含量的相关系数
Correlation coefficient of sucrose content between adjacent organs with starch content
in storage root
商薯19
Shangshu 19
柄-叶 Petiole-Leaf -0.274 -0.679**
柄-茎顶部 Petiole-Stem top -0.308 -0.732**
茎基部-茎顶部 Stem base-Stem top -0.758** -0.934**
茎基部-块根 Stem top-Storage roots -0.924** -0.882**
济徐23
Jixu 23
柄-叶 Petiole-Leaf -0.210 -0.582*
柄-茎顶部 Petiole-Stem top -0.243 -0.651**
茎基部-茎顶部 Stem base-Stem top -0.839** -0.933**
茎基部-块根 Stem top-Storage roots -0.913** -0.856**
[1] Rankine D R, Cohen J E, Taylor M A, Coy A D, Simpson L A, Stephenson T . Parameterizing the FAO Aquacrop model for rainfed and irrigated field-grown sweet potato. Agron J, 2015,107:1.
[2] Hazra P, Chattopadhyay A, Karmakar K, Dutta S. Sweet potato. In: Modern Technology in Vegetable Production. New Delhi: New India Publishing Agency, 2011. pp 358-370.
[3] Abdissa T A, Chali K, Tolessa F, Tadese A G . Yield and yield components of sweet potato as influenced by plant density in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha District, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Am J Exp Agric, 2001,1:40-48.
[4] Mu T H, Tan S S, Xue Y L . The amino acid composition, solubility and emulsifying properties of sweet potato protein. Food Chem, 2009,112:1002-1005.
[5] Bourke R M . Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) production and research in Papua New Guinea. J Agric For Fisher, 1985,33:89-108.
[6] Bourke R M . Influence of soil moisture on sweet potato yield in the Papua New Guinea highlands. Mountain Res Dev, 1989,9:322-328.
[7] Duan W, Wang Q, Zhang H . Comparative study on carbon- nitrogen metabolism and endogenous hormone contents in normal and overgrown sweetpotato. South Afr J Bot, 2018,115:199-207.
[8] Kazuyki W, Toshio K . Effects of the capacity and composition of soil air on the growth and yield of sweet potato plants. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1964,33:418-422.
[9] Anikwe M A N, Ubochi J N . Short-term changes in soil properties under tillage systems and their effect on sweet potato ( Ipomea batatas L.) growth and yield in an Ultisol in south-eastern Nigeria. Aust J Soil Res, 2007,45:351-358.
[10] Bogunovic I, Pereira P, Kisic I, Sajko K, Sraka M . Tillage management impacts on soil compaction, erosion and crop yield in Stagnosols (Croatia). Catena, 2018,160:376-384.
[11] Ungureanu N, Croitoru S T, Biriş S, Voicu G, Vlǎ Duţ V, Selvi K C . Agricultural soil compaction under the action of agricultural machinery. Actual Tasks Agric Eng, 2015,43:31-42.
[12] Botta G F, Tolon-Becerra A, Lastra-Bravo X, Tourn M . Tillage and traffic effects (planters and tractors) on soil compaction and soybean ( Glycine max L.) yields in Argentinean pampas. Soil Tillage Res, 2010,110:167-174.
[13] 史春余, 王振林, 郭风法, 余松烈 . 土壤通气性对甘薯养分吸收、 14C-同化物分配及产量的影响 . 核农学报, 2002,16:232-236.
Shi C Y, Wang Z L, Guo F F, Yu S L . Effects of the soil aeration on nutrient absorption, 14C-assimilates distribution and storage root yield in sweet potato . J Nucl Agric Sci, 2002,16:232-236 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14] Watanabe K, Ozaki K . Studies on the effects of soil physical conditions on the growth and yield of crop plants: III. Effects of the capacity and composition of soil air on the growth and yield of sweet potato plants. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1964,33:418-422.
[15] Watanabe K, Kodama T, Nomoto T . Studies on the effects of soil physical conditions on the growth and yield of crop plants: IV. Effects of the different soil structures on a few physiological characters of sweet potato plants. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1966,34:409-412.
[16] 王树钿, 于作庆 . 甘薯在不同土壤条件下高产规律的初步研究. 中国农业科学, 1981,14(1):49-55.
Wang S D, Yu Z Q . A preliminary study on the high-yielding law of sweet potato in different kind of soil. Sci Agric Sin, 1981,14(1):49-55 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17] 史春余, 王振林, 余松烈 . 土壤通气性对甘薯产量的影响及其生理机制. 中国农业科学, 2001,34:173-178.
Shi C Y, Wang Z L, Yu S L . Effects of soil aeration on sweet potato yield and its physiological mechanism. Sci Agric Sin, 2001,34:173-178 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] 史春余 . 土壤学. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2005. pp 131-136.
Sun X Y . Soil Science. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House Publishers, 2005. pp 131-136(in Chinese).
[19] 朱伟 . 蒽酮-硫酸比色法测定香菇多糖含量. 北方药学, 2011,8(8):8-9.
Zhu W . Determination of the lentinan content by anthrone-sulfuric acid colorimetry. J North Pharmacy, 2011,8(8):8-9 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20] Kodama T, Nomoto T, Watanabe K . The effect of soil density and amount of fertilizer on the growth and yield. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1959,27:372-374.
[21] Kaoru E, Hakabu S . Effect of atmospheric humidity and soil moisture on the translocation of sucroce- 14C in the sweet potato plant . Jpn J Crop Sci, 1962,32:41-44.
[22] Kazuyuki W, Toshio K . Effects of the different soil structures on a few physiological characters of sweet potato plants. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1965,34:409-412.
[23] 史文卿, 张彬彬, 柳洪鹃, 赵庆鑫, 史春余, 王新建, 司成成 . 甘薯块根形成和膨大对土壤紧实度的响应机制及与产量的关系. 作物学报, 2019,45:755-763.
Shi W Q, Zhang B B, Liu H J, Zhao Q X, Shi C Y, Wang X J, Si C C . Response mechanism of sweet potato storage root formation and bulking to soil compaction and its relationship with yield. Acta Agron Sin, 2019,45:755-763 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] 姜丽娜,马静丽,方保停,马建辉,李春喜,王志敏,蒿宝珍. 限水减氮对豫北冬小麦产量和植株不同层次器官干物质运转的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(6): 957-966.
[2] 史文卿,张彬彬,柳洪鹃,赵庆鑫,史春余,王新建,司成成. 甘薯块根形成和膨大对土壤紧实度的响应机制及与产量的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(5): 755-763.
[3] 张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,董顺旭,段文学,张立明. 不同甘薯品种抗旱性评价及耐旱指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(3): 419-430.
[4] 段文学,张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,张立明. 甘薯苗期耐盐性鉴定及其指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(8): 1237-1247.
[5] 安建刚,敬夫,丁祎,肖怡,尚浩浩,李宏利,杨晓璐,唐道彬,王季春. 氮肥分期运筹对套作甘薯产量、品质及氮素效率的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(12): 1858-1866.
[6] 徐云姬, 许阳东, 李银银, 钱希旸, 王志琴, 杨建昌. 干湿交替灌溉对水稻花后同化物转运和籽粒灌浆的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(04): 554-568.
[7] 侯松, 田侠, 刘庆. 叶面喷施硒对紫甘薯硒吸收、分配及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(03): 423-430.
[8] 张海燕,段文学,解备涛,董顺旭,汪宝卿,史春余,张立明. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯内源激素的影响及其与块根产量的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(01): 126-136.
[9] 唐道彬,安建刚,丁祎,白慧,张凯,吕长文,傅体华,王季春. 甘薯块根硬度与干物质含量的相关性[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(08): 1234-1244.
[10] 汪顺义,李欢,刘庆,史衍玺*. 施钾对甘薯根系生长和产量的影响及其生理机制[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(07): 1057-1066.
[11] 石璇,王茹媛,唐君,李宗芸,罗永海. 利用简化基因组技术分析甘薯种间单核苷酸多态性[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(05): 641-647.
[12] 吴春红,刘庆,孔凡美,李欢,史衍玺. 氮肥施用量对不同紫甘薯品种产量和氮素效率的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(01): 113-122.
[13] 王翠娟,史春余,刘娜,刘双荣,余新地. 结薯数差异显著的甘薯品种生长前期根系特性及根叶糖组分比较[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(01): 131-140.
[14] 宁运旺,马洪波,张辉,汪吉东,许仙菊,张永春*. 甘薯源库关系建立、发展和平衡对氮肥用量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(03): 432-439.
[15] 柳洪鹃,史春余,柴沙沙. 不同产量水平甘薯品种光合产物分配差异及其原因[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(03): 440-447.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 李绍清;李阳生;吴福顺;廖江林;李达模. 水稻孕穗期在淹涝胁迫下施肥的优化选择及其作用机理[J]. 作物学报, 2002, 28(01): 115 -120 .
[2] 王兰珍;米国华;陈范骏;张福锁. 不同产量结构小麦品种对缺磷反应的分析[J]. 作物学报, 2003, 29(06): 867 -870 .
[3] 王丽燕;赵可夫. 玉米幼苗对盐胁迫的生理响应[J]. 作物学报, 2005, 31(02): 264 -268 .
[4] 王逸群. 根瘤菌对水稻的感染[J]. 作物学报, 2002, 28(01): 32 -35 .
[5] 柯丽萍;郑滔;吴学龙;何海燕;陈锦清. 甘蓝型油菜SLG基因片段的克隆及序列分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(05): 764 -769 .
[6] 吕丽华;陶洪斌;夏来坤; 张雅杰; 赵明; 赵久然;王璞. 不同种植密度下的夏玉米冠层结构及光合特性[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 447 -455 .
[7] 梁太波;尹燕枰;蔡瑞国;闫素辉;李文阳;耿庆辉;王平;王振林. 大穗型小麦品种强、弱势籽粒淀粉积累和相关酶活性的比较[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(01): 150 -156 .
[8] 倪大虎;易成新;李莉;汪秀峰;张毅;赵开军;王春连;章琦;王文相;杨剑波. 分子标记辅助培育水稻抗白叶枯病和稻瘟病三基因聚合系[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(01): 100 -105 .
[9] 田志坚;易蓉;陈建荣;郭清泉;张学文. 苎麻纤维素合成酶基因cDNA的克隆及表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(01): 76 -83 .
[10] 汪保华;武耀廷;黄乃泰;郭旺珍;朱协飞;张天真. 陆地棉重组自交系产量及产量构成因子性状的上位性QTL分析[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(11): 1755 -1762 .